Talk:Western culture/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Orphaned references in Western culture

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Western culture's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "euroreligion2012":

• From Culture of Europe: "Discrimination in the EU in 2012" (PDF), Special Eurobarometer, 393, European Union: European Commission, p. 233, 2012, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2012, retrieved 14 August 2013 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?" With a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and Non-believer/Agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Jewish, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.
• From European Union: "Discrimination in the EU in 2012" (PDF), Special Eurobarometer, 393, European Union: European Commission, p. 233, 2012, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2012, retrieved 14 August 2013 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) The question asked was "Do you consider yourself to be...?" With a card showing: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, and Non-believer/Agnostic. Space was given for Other (SPONTANEOUS) and DK. Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu did not reach the 1% threshold.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research

I'm not really experienced at editing (I barely added anything here), but many edits seem to be biased and also original research (adding stuff like "based on Christian values" and "since the time of Charlemagne" witholut citing a single source) so I removed them.RotarenegEmem (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Huge picture galleries of people not known for their faces.

I recently tried to tone down the massive lists of pictures of people who may or may not be relevant to western culture. However an anon user has now twice readded claiming the 56 of inventors and 40 of authors are of key importance to wikipedia. I challenge this assumption for the following reasons (1) It violates WP:IG as most of these people are not known for their faces but for their known. Hence the use of images is excessive and can easily be replaced by the text. In addition, the galleries are not even clearly linked to the text. (2) These galleries seem a way to circumvent WP:USEPROSE as long lists should be avoided in text. (3) It violates WP:NOTDIR by providing a simple list without sourcing or context (4) it violates WP:OR as the essential relevance for each and any should be provided based on reliable sources. E.g. the inclusion of Tolkien really needs a source. All in all I would say these galleries violate multiple policies and should be removed. (Nota bene, I did not remove e.g. architecture as the building images are central to their relevance.) Arnoutf (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed the excessive galleries ... if they be of key import ... then the text content should cover it. The galleries were simply excess and distracting fluff. Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Justification for latest edits

It has been brought to my attention that some might considered my revisions to be removing or otherwise understating Jewish influence or contributions to Western civilization.

It has been claimed I deleted sources: I believe I removed one that was vague and of debatable accuracy, but otherwise I have only added citations where either there were none or there could be more.

The article prior to my edits strongly implied a direct and prominent influence of Judaism upon the West: while this is arguably correct, I improved the accuracy by noting the specific historical context and branch of Judaism out of which Christianity emerged, and which affected the West the most strongly. I also edited the erroneous claim that Jews were considered a Western or European ethnic group or strong cultural or linguistic influence on the West or Christianity and expanded on the remarkably lax paragraph concerning Western antisemitism. I also made the demarcation between Christianity and Judaism more clear; the prior revision made it seem as if post-Temple Judaism and post-Jewish Christianity are more similar than is correct, and influenced Western culture to a similar or equal degree; I added mention of the definite split between the two, and the consequences that had upon later Jewish-Christian relations.

I also added material on Western theatre, improved grammar in several places, corrected an ambiguous and seemingly incorrect reference to Greek and Roman medicine, and added a few miscellaneous citations as needed.

As Jewish and Ancient Near Eastern history are my areas of expertise, I will leave any further edits to parts of the article not pertaining to those topics up to other contributors; I feel that my edits in those particular areas are accurate and well-sourced. Batanat (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for your edits, and for taking the time to explain them. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You can't remove sources just because you disagree with them. The sources say explicitly "Judaeo–Graeco–Christianity" and "Judaism". Your replacement with Hellenistic Judaism and Jewish Christians doesn't cover it. Infantom (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Britannica says "Judaism". So that's the wording we should use. Not that Britannica is the best source, it is rather generalist. As for Judeo-Greco-Christianity, sure you have a single source from the 1950s, but if you want it in the lede and in boldface, you will need a lot better than that. Khirurg (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason I specified Hellenistic Judaism and Jewish Christians is because the statement that simply "Judaism" directly influenced nascent Western civilization is debatable at absolute best. The source used for "Judeo-Greco-Christian" does not adequately justify itself (Christianity may be derived from Judaism, but that is an indirect, not direct, influence from Judaism). The specific historical context in which Judaism influenced the formation of the nascent West was during the period of Hellenization. I feel that this specificity is needed to accurately represent the historical development of Western culture; because as it stands, implying that generic Judaism had a direct or "seminal" impact on the West is in conflict with the several other (correct) references in the article to historical Western and/or Christian antagonism towards Jews and Judaism, and could easily be confusing. "Judaism" is often taken to refer to Jewish religious traditions as a whole, both ancient and modern, and particularly Rabbinical Judaism; but Christianity/the West was not directly, seminally, or otherwise strongly impacted by post-Temple Jewish culture or religion, they were specifically impacted by a specific form of Judaism and Judaic proto-Christianity which existed only during the period of the Second Temple, during which Hellenization was a prominent and influential factor. Batanat (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. All that's needed now is a source for that. Currently the only source used is Britannica, which is a very generalist, tertiary source, which is far from ideal, and easily replaced. As for "Judeo-Greco-Christianity", I note that there is no source that uses that as an alternative name for Western civ, rather, it is used to describe Christianity itself, which is obviously not the same thing. Khirurg (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Judaism or Jewish culture is one of the corner stones of western civilization, there are plenty of sources for that, not just brittanica. I'll add a section to the body of the article, which should clarify the issue. Batanat, the impact of Judaism far exceeded the boundaries of Hellenistic Judaism, such as the Hebrew bible, a major corner stone, which was composed before the first century and regardless to Jewish Christianity and Hellenized Judaism. Infantom (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It really isn't, Infantom, and I say that as a Jewish person myself. Yes, the Tanakh became a part of Christianity, but again: that's, at best, an indirect influence, as it had to go through the medium of Christianity. The West certainly did not borrow any significant Jewish culture attached to it (which is why Jewish culture was typically considered barbaric, diabolical, or otherwise evil by the Christian West historically). Christians may have emerged from the framework of Hellenized Judaism, but the vast majority of actual Christians, particularly after the 1st Century, were not Jewish: they were Gentiles, with the thoroughly non-Jewish New Testament, rooted only vaguely in a particular syncretistic subset of Judaism. So again, saying "Judaism" or "Jewish culture" was embraced by the West, let alone a "corner stone", is simply not realistic. Jews and Judaism were massively persecuted by the Christian West, and even Jewish diaspora communities living in Western/Christian countries were relegated to ghettoes and segregated villages, not freely intermingling and lending their culture to Western civilization. Certainly many particular Jews or groups of Jews have made important contributions to society or to culture (e.g., I mentioned musical theatre in the article), but that's not the same as saying that "Jewish culture" or "Judaism" itself can be credited with such things. (Almost all of which are modern and done by assimilated or semi-assimilated Jews anyway, so trying to retrogressively insert massive Jewish influence into historical Western/Christian culture is simply anachronistic.) People often overestimate how much Christianity is indebted to Judaism and Jewish culture. Judaism might have been the mantle out of which many Christian ideas were formulated, but Christianity was extremely distinct from Judaism right from the very start: and even the parts of Jewish culture that made it into Christianity, such as the Tanakh, are not used or interpreted the same way by Christian culture as they are within Jewish culture. Christianity is about as similar to Judaism as the Roman cult of Mithras was to the Zoroastrian god Mithra: sure, one is partially inspired by the other, and borrows certain cultural elements, but the bulk of the things are completely different, sometimes even diametrically opposed. The cultural framework in which Christianity gestated might have been a syncretic kind of Judaism, but everything afterward developed independently of Jewish culture, in a cultural framework not only radically different, but indeed hostile towards Judaism.Batanat (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

change/move first image & its caption

The first image on this page—the goat—seems rather inappropriate for the context and for its content. First of all, the caption does not explain the image, and, the length of the caption makes me think this subject should be made into its own section. Secondly, the source is heavily biased toward the argument it's making, and if that source is to be included I feel the bias should be made clear. For reference, from the synopsis of the book:
"Dawson traces the history of these developments and argues that Western civilization can only be saved by redirecting its entire educational system... [he] insists that the Christian college must be the cornerstone of such an educational reform. "
I would make the changes myself, but I am not experienced with changing images. I was also hoping others would weigh in considering this is a passionate subject for some. - Pythagimedes (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the "Lamb of God" image needs a more coherent caption, and that the existing caption seems like a bit of misplaced body text. I also question the image's preeminence in the lead of an article on a culture whose Graeco-Roman antecedents predate Christianity. It will be interesting to see what other editors have to say about it. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

South Africa

South Africa and most Southern African countries are definitely Western Culture. They fundamentally Christian; operate economically, socially, politically as Western and identify with the West. Just look at the definition and what makes are country Western or not Western, then it is obviously Western self-evidently.

Potential Contributions

I would like to add some content that specifically speaks to the place and contributions of Judaism within Western Culture. I feel that it does not receive enough credit within this article. I would like to add this paragraph into the already existing Religion section: "According to the Encyclopedia of Global Religions, Jewish people within Europe and the Middle East have had extensive influences on trade, poetry, philosophy, literature, and customs.[2] Because of their historically harsh treatment and need to frequently migrate, Jewish people acted as transporters of knowledge, bringing common European ideas to the predominantly Muslim Middle East.[2] The Encyclopedia of Global Religions also states that the tolerance and attitudes towards Jews within European states acted as a way of determining the open mindedness of that state.[2] Despite some nations being tolerant towards Jewish populations, historical records show that many Jews wished to be seen as a religious sect and not an ethnically separate population.[3] The Encyclopedia of Judaism specifically states that British Jews sought to do this by being seen first as British citizens and second as followers of Judaism.[3]" I would also like to add some sourced sentences that speak to the subjectivity of the phrase "Western Culture." These edits would look consist of these sentences being placed into the Terminology section: The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture states that defining a "cultural area" is incredibly subjective and challenging.[4] According to scholars Jenkins and Karnos, culture can be defined as "an orientation for a person’s way of feeling, thinking, and being in the world."[5] According to National Geographic, the inclusion of Greek and Roman art, literature, and history has been pillar of Western Culture." My final edit would deal with adding some sentences on the potential negatives of Western Culture. This would make the article more neutral and not as glorifying to Western Culture. This would look like: The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture maintains that "Western Culture" has used principles based in "freedom" and "democracy" to subjugate other cultures to colonial rule and even destroying some cultures.[4] Eurocentrism, an idea based on the existence of a "Western Culture" is defined by The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture as "the conviction that Europe is an inevitable and necessary global reference point as it is the cultural, political and economic centre of the world."[4] European powers frequently used religion, specifically Christianity, to justify hostilities towards domestic and foreign groups.[1]

new article please

"Given a long history of colonialism, the overwhelming majority of South Americans speak Portuguese or Spanish, and societies and states reflect Western traditions". from the article on South America — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.122.213 (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The Crisis of Western Education

@Jingiby: In issues of verifiability, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who adds or restores material. I would also suggest that when a fairly detailed rationale has already been included in the edit summary, the generic statement "not an improvement" is not a very strong rebuttal. (And I actually didn't even include all the lines of reasoning that I was thinking of, e.g. WP:EXCEPTIONAL fits the situation as well.) Sunrise (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sunrise. What about "The Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman traditions are the two principal components of Western civilization." retrived from: Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore H. Von Laue; Western Civilization: Since 1400; Cengage 2012; ISBN 1111831696, p. XXIX. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This certainly looks like a much better source. However, it doesn't support the current article text, which credits Christianity alone (not even Judeo-Christianity) with e.g. being "nearly synonymous" with Western culture for "at least the last 1000 years". I would be happy with replacing the content I removed with a straightforward statement similar to your example quotation. This source seems strong enough to place it in both the lead and the body, and as long as a contradictory source of similar strength doesn't show up, it shouldn't even need attribution. Sunrise (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I’ve performed the edit I described in my last comment. The specific wording of the replacement is subject to adjustment - e.g. when paraphrasing, I used a “strongest influences” formulation as the equivalent to the original phrase “principal components” since I think the latter makes the relationship sound additive rather than Western culture being able to stand as its own tradition as well. I’ll also add a bit more elaboration from the same source in a separate edit. Sunrise (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Christian bias

Enough forum posting. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article, like its companion "Christian culture", ascribes too much importance to Christian religion for the development of "Western" civilization; relying mostly on dubious 20th century essays written by biased Christian authors as references. It is suspicious that an article about a civilization is littered so profusely with credits to Christianity. The article should strictly be about the civilization itself and not the religion that was prominent at certain times. The bulk of Western civilization was created by non-Christian Europeans, and important contributions made by Islamic cultures and the Mongols (see "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World") are ignored, even over the supposed contributions of Jews. The implication here is of course that this article has been hijacked by Judeo-Christian kooks who are looking to credit their two-bit religion with the creation of Western civilization; which actually peaked long before the adoption of Christianity (concurrent with multiple military defeats and submission to more advanced Islam and the receiving of culture from non-Islamic cultures), and didn't begin to rebound until after the rejection of the primacy of Christianity (Age of Enlightenment). Christianity was essentially the ghetto of Western civilization. Not unexpected for a religion that came from the ghetto, and which is today most common in ghettoes. Anilating (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC) You clearly have anti-Christian and anti-semitic bias. Go read a book.UltimateHope (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC) "The origin of western civilization is usually dated to 700 or 800 AD. In general, researchers consider that it has three main components, in Europe, North America and Latin America. [...] However, Latin America has followed a quite different development path from Europe and North..."-secular intellectual Samuel P. Huntington.UltimateHope (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Samuel Huntington has demonstrated much anti-Islamic and pro-Christian bias as evidenced by the page you link. He is also accused of academic fraud by Serge Lang, limiting his credulity for wholly unsourced claims such as "most people agree Western civ began 1300 years ago". Evidence, please?UltimateHope (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC) The Wikipedia article already acknowledges the obvious fact that the bulk of Western civilization was laid in ancient Greece and Rome, hundreds of years before Christ existed. So Samuel Huntington's crackhead quote doesn't justify the blatant Christian bias in the article, which is quite honestly shameless and recalls "We Wuz Kangz" LARPery. Christianity was a ghetto religion and marked an era of great poverty and suffering in Europe; Islamic contributions ought to get more rep than Christian ones if we are going to stupidly mend supposed human developments with the religion of their creators. Anilating (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Modern Western civilization in modern sense was rooted in the Antiquity, but shaped by Christianity, so I see no particular bias worth of shouting loud but rather usual Wikipedia sloppiness in broad-scope articles. If you have specific suggestions on article improvement, bring them here. Yes Christianity was a major effector, both positive and negative. Of course neither the Jews nor popes invented moral norms, but Christianity did work hard to enforce them. And so on. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Moral norms are a small part of civilization and the article itself. The primary contents of the article are art, science/technology, media, sports and religion. Yet references to Christianity are exhaustive at the beginning of the article; even though Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with the development of art, technology, media or sports. And the supposed shaping of Western civ by Christianity is only referenced with extremely low quality, obscure mid-20th century books written by Christian authors. The article is CLEARLY hijacked by Judeo-Christian zealots. Anilating (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Please refrain from attacking wikipedians, see WP:NPA; other wise you will get yourself into troubles.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Second time: What specific changes are you planning to introduce in the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Where in the article you see how Christianity impacted sports and media? Where in the article undie weight is given to development of technology? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Clearly English is not your first language; because that is exactly my point. Christianity is uninfluential in the bulk of the articles' subjects; yet an exhaustive amount of credit is given to Christianity in the article's introduction; at the top of the page. Christianity has been wholly uninfluential to the development of Western civilization; the fact that a guy who happened to be a Christian wrote some law does not justify the excessive Christian celebrity in the articles' introduction. Anilating (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC) "Obscure books" - we have WP:RS policy. If you think the books are insufficiently reputable, please discuss them one by one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Christianity made important contributions to philosophy and law and created an environment favorable to science. Cannon law developed by the monk Gratian around 1140. It was a systematic organization and compilation and was the first systematic legal treatise in the West. “The idea of rights is one of the most distinctive aspects of Western civilization, and scholars are increasingly coming to acknowledge that it, too, comes from the Church.” Western moral values derive from the Catholic idea of the sacredness of human life. The uniqueness and value of each person, by virtue of the immortal soul, was nowhere to be found in the ancient world. Where the poor, the sick or the weak were treated with contempt and sometimes abandoned. Catholics spoke out against infanticide, which was accepted in Greece and Rome. During the period 1150-1300 there developed a vocabulary related to natural rights. Natural rights that were defined included property, marriage and self-defense. A prince or the state had no jurisdiction over rights based on natural law.Phmoreno (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC) No it didn't. Europe was the backwaters of philosphy and law on the global stage and got their ass handed to them by Muslim cultures with more advanced sciences during medieval periods. Muslim and Asian contributions made Europe favorable to science. Anilating (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC) "Scholars USUALLY agree..."Huntington quotes SCHOLARLY consensus, not his own original opinion. No "crackhead quote" here. Also don't delete other's comments just because you don't want others to see them. I don't think you understand what "Western civilization" is (international law, an important part of modern Western civilization, definitely did NOT exist during Ancient Greece and Rome). And "Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with the development of art, technology, media or sports" is blatantly not true, as hundreds of sources throughout academia, some of which are even in this encyclopedia or this very article, will prove. And given your constant neo-Nazism and praise of Islam, it is obvious you are just here to enforce fascist views upon everyone.UltimateHope (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Huntington doesn't quote anyone, and even if he had, a consensus (from the 1950s, no less) isn't fact. Your accusations are laughable.Anilating (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC) He quotes EVERYONE. And consensus is what defines a fact (evolution is a fact because it is what the current consensus, based on current evidence, decides to be true)Given your obvious use of "ghetto" and standard neo-Nazi rhetoric, the hilariousness of your rejections of my accusations is huge. And this data is not only from the 1950s ,but from contemporary sources as well, and your data is far older (from the 1800s, with scarcely any scholarly supporter in the contemporary era)UltimateHope (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Ha ha ha, he quotes no one, lady. Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory. Exactly what "data" are you referring to? I haven't posted anything. Christianity came from the ghetto. Actual fact. Anilating (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Now you are just trolling. I hope no one is stupid or bigoted enough to take your posts seriously. You don't even understand what "data" is while pretending to understand it. We're done here.UltimateHope (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC) See you in the funny papers, clown. :-D Anilating (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC) " "A popular if uninformed manner of speaking refers to the medieval period as "the dark ages." Of course, you were talking about yourself there, grandpa.UltimateHope (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Western culture dates back to the Greeks. Greek philosophy influenced Christianity. Greek philosophy was also fundamentally important to science, especially the logic used in geometry and reasoning by Aristotle and others. Palto's [Republic (Plato)|Republic]] was a monumental contribution to political philosophy.Phmoreno (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC) Yes, but what Huntington means by "western civilisation"-the default academic definition-is the post-classical civilisation bound together by international law, Western European (originally Western Christian) identity and reverence for their Greek and Roman spiritual ancestors.UltimateHope (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC) UltimateHope, if you're contributing in this discussion it's not really up to you to close it. I'll do it for you. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC) References

Agreed. There is a strong Chrisitan bias about the postive effects of it's structures and the inherent "vile nature" of pagan societies. This is problematic black and white thinking. Christianity has had positive impacts on the world, and had many progressive elements compared with latin culture. Still, the article is clearly biased both in how it tescribes the religion in absolute positive terms and how it describes ;other religions in absolute negative terms. DxRxXxZx (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kayceemoergeli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bhousey7785.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Western religions into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as these are broad topics warranting separate coverage. Klbrain (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

---

I don't think it is necessary to have Western religions as a separate article, religion is well within the scope of this article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Tentative support, as the Western religions is a short article and obviously a vaild subsection here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, keep them separated.

Plenty can be added to the individual article. 10stone5 (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Against. While there certainly should be a section within this page on Western religion (as there is), Western religion is too broad and notable a topic not to also have its own page. Just because a topic falls under the purview of another page does not mean it does not also merit its own page. As a rather direct comparison, Eastern religions has its own page even though it falls under Culture of Asia. Furthermore, the Western religions page really should be quite large—too large to include only as a section within this page. In my opinion, Western religions should be further expanded and a {{main|Western religions}} tag should be added to the Religion section of this page (which I will do in just a moment).Jaydavidmartin (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jaydavidmartin - Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mona Lisa is within the scope of this article as well. That is not a valid reason for a merge. Both pages meet standalone criteria and are distinct enough to benefit WP. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Culture and religion are not the same thing. 120.16.228.195 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no such a thing that Western Religion, only Western Christianity exist.--188.36.92.141 (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is very wrong. Western religions is a big topic, Islam is also a type of Western religions. All monotheistic religions are Western religions. 120.16.228.195 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Religions of a majority of the population of Europe originated in the middle east and are therefore not "European Religions".

• Oppose Religion is a broad topic deserving its own page. Pastore Barracuda (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The articles on Eastern vs Western religion are contentious enough and large pages in their own right. Merging them would cause issues in all regards. DxRxXxZx (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Like 188 said, Western religion should be and is understood here as Western Christianity, rather than inclusive of Orthodoxy, Islam and numerous other Near and Middle Eastern religions. These would represent a serious change in meaning and conceptualization. There is already the concise concept of Abrahamic religions, which include the traditional Western religion Restern Christianity, as well as all variants of Eastern Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. I also have to note, that culture, geography and religion are all separate things. Rejigion shiuld be talked about in terms of its influence on modern western culture, but not as the bedrock or fundamental principle. Western identity exists independent to it. DxRxXxZx (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birthplace

Hello, shouldn't we say that Ancient Greece is the cradle/birthplace of Western Culture instead of "Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of many elements of Western culture"? I mean I can edit it, and that's how it is in the most wikipedia pages related to Western/European culture, but I want to ask first. Thanks in advance.Holloman123 (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2021

Catholic church

User:Daveout, there is a good reason why historians no longer call the Middle Ages dark, and it is because it turned out to be an era of creative genius; the Gothic cathedrals for example, have been called the greatest masterpieces of Western architecture. No scandal of the church can change that.Graecusperseus (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Graecusperseus: Thanks for coming here to discuss it, note that you should keep the article the way it was before the contested revision was made. It's called keeping the status quo. The problems with the revision are:

1. The claim that the catholic church was responsible for the preservation of greek texts needs the page number for verifiability.
2. Catholic scholars are not neutral sources for matters regarding the role of Christianity throughout history. Can you find non-catholic sources corroborating the claim that catholicism was responsible for the development of western civilization? Daveout (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: how would you feel about the inclusion of a marxist-atheist historian's opinion about the role of the Catholic Church on the development of the western world? do you think that would be neutral and fair? Daveout (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: If the sources meet Wiki criteria for reliability, it doesn't matter what their religion is. I don't exactly know what this editorial dispute is about, but the OP's claim about the Dark Ages is correct: this term is viewed as a misnomer by scholars.

I also wouldn't call Gothic cathedrals "the greatest masterpieces of Western architecture". Greater than skyscrapers?Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There are more there a couple lame skyscrapers. Their construction is mostly a result from our technological advances. Don't get me wrong, they are impressive, but generally it's just stacking bricks or pinning iron with bolts. There, usually, isn't much creativity to them. Gothic architecture has a detailing and symbolism that skyscrapers usually lack. Liberty5651 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan f1, you are correct (per WP:NPOVS), reliable sources do not have to be neutral. I didn't know better when I wrote that and I probably expressed myself poorly. On the other hand, the information presented here should not be tendentious, and what was written was extremely tendentious (in my opinion). I'm also not 100% sure whether the provided sources are reliable or not. — Daveout ^(talk) 00:09, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Daveout:, @Graecusperseus:, if I remember, or care, I can give you a couple references for the claim that the Catholic Church was responsible for the preservation of Greek texts. They'll be found around the Medici eras and the schools they founded. Liberty5651 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi,@Liberty5651: and @Jonathan f1:. For context, Im gonna put the part of the text that I removed (shortly after it was added), along with its sources, in the collapsible table bellow. This was my edit summary at the time: removing extremely tendentious claims. the catholic church thwarted the development of science and culture. that's why it's called the dark ages. "interfering" with something is not the same as "developing" it. The "dark ages" thing comes from that. Liberty5651, That would be a good addition if good and neutral sources are provided, but that phrasing is tendentious in my opinion. It is best to write something like: The Catholic Church contributed, to some extent, to the preservation of some old Greek texts or something along those lines... — Daveout ^(talk) 23:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Text being disputed

Christian attempts to reconcile these frameworks were responsible for the preservation of Greek philosophy. Western culture, throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture. Historian Paul Legutko of Stanford University said the Catholic Church is "at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws, and institutions which constitute what we call Western civilization." Rescued sources: Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase, James Jacob, Margaret Jacob, Theodore H. Von Laue (1 January 2012). Western Civilization: Since 1400. Cengage Learning. p. XXIX. ISBN 978-1-111-83169-1. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=N6jytVCocwMC&redir_esc=y Dawson, Christopher; Glenn Olsen (1961). Crisis in Western Education (reprint ed.). p. 108. "Review of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas Woods, Jr". National Review Book Service. Archived from the original on 22 August 2006. Retrieved 16 September 2006. https://web.archive.org/web/20060822150152/http://www.nrbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6664

As noted in the previous section, the reference "The Crisis of Western Education" does not support the text in question (in addition to being inappropriate for other reasons). Looking briefly at the others, the first citation is on page xxix and is reliable, but the third (Legutko) does not appear to be an appropriate expert. Sunrise (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sunrise, you are correct. The claim that "Christianity was responsible for the preservation of Greek philosophy" was indeed supported by that source. I probably missed that out of mindlessness. Sorry Graecusperseus. (i'm such a loser sometimes #facepalm) — Daveout ^(talk) 03:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Em, scholars view the invention of skyscrapers as the most significant architectural innovation since antiquity, as it was the first design that was uniquely original and distinct from Greco-Roman styles. Gothic architecture evolved out of the Romanesque tradition.

But let's not have this discussion turn into a forum debate about architecture. The dispute here has to do with improving the quality of this page with appropriate sources.

I have only skimmed this article, but I can tell you right now that the book "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" is not a good source. It's been cited way too much from what I saw, and is cheapening the quality of the article. Content in historical articles should be supported by reliable secondary sources according to Wiki criteria: vetted research published in respectable history journals; or books written by scholars, published by distinguished academic presses (ie Oxford University Press), and reviewed by other historians. Books written by scholars for a popular audience suffice only when no other source material can be found.

If Woods' theory is correct -- that the Catholic Church "built Western civilization" -- there should be an abundance of research to choose from, so that we are not relying on one book that was purposely written for an audience of laymen. Has this book been reviewed by other historians? What did they say?Jonathan f1 (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I found four uses of the book in the article, either directly or as citations to the associated book review. There are also uses in other articles that it might be a good idea to look into. Regardless, I agree with your evaluation of the source, and that it shouldn't be the sole support for potentially controversial statements. In particular, I've removed it for the claim The Catholic Church was for centuries at the center of the development of the values, ideas, science, laws and institutions which constitute Western civilization. I've also removed the other use of the book review as it's another copy of the Legutko statement. Sunrise (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

These history articles are such a mess, Sunrise. It is so overwhelming that I don't have it in me to do any major edits; in some cases whole pages need to be revised, an effort that would take both consensus and collaboration from several editors. In the American history section references such as "Albion's Seed" and "Born Fighting" frequently appear, despite that both books qualify as "fringe".

Four times is four times too many imo. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization was published by Regnery Publishing, which is not a legit academic press. It's a self-styled "conservative book publisher" that publishes the likes of Ann Coulter and Mike Pence. No offense to fans of Ann Coulter and Mike Pence, but RP publishes what American conservatives want to hear, not necessarily credible academic research.

These references to pop history books have got to stop. Wiki is quite clear on source requirements for history articles.Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Fuller explanation of removal

While I still have a little time, and the topics are still fresh, some thoughts to put some flesh on the bones of the points above.

The most fundamental and simple point, that Huntington has gone from being a lowly regarded thinker many of whose predictions were uncertain, to being simultaneously an academically lowly regarded thinker many of whose predictions have specifically been proven wrong, still stands as a double reason for removing the map, but there are several more detailed points to be made.

The map should be understood in its context. As a scion of the US Cold War foreign policy establishment, Huntington and the institutions he was associated with were very worried by two particular developments at the moment of writing in 1993.

At the end of the Cold War, and the turn of the 1990s, the US, and George Bush Sr's administration in particular, had assumed, roughly, a unipolar liberal democratic order with the US as the head and exemplar - pace Fukuyama.

Instead, the US foreign policy establishment was suddenly faced with two very nasty surprises, for a group of people for whom great-power and balance-of-power theories were lifeblood ; Yugoslavia had suddenly descended into war, apparently entirely on religious-historical grounds , and simultaneously the US was suddenly becoming more aware of strategic errors it had made in the Middle East during the Cold War. At the time Huntington first started the article, in 1993 , the Serbo-Croat conflict, dating in reality as much to European strategic realpolitik of pre-World War I as to religious differences it capitalised on, had just spiralled further out of control, to take in a disastrous Christian-Muslim clash in Bosnia, which would go on to spread out further to Kosovo. American officials and policymakers, as well a broad mass of more radical post-modern thinkers at the time generally, believed they had underestimated the power of religion after the fall of communist ideology in Europe. Considering Russia's position in this, the most urgent strategic corollary and lesson, for the US in Europe at least, seemed to be that Russia may have been at the start of a process of pulling the Orthodox world back into its orbit , *despite* the end of communism.

At exactly the same time, in the wake of the defeat of the Communist government in Afghanistan partly by US-backed islamists, the Peshawar cross-community accords had just failed, and Islamists had just emerged as a distinct force in what had been previously been considered mainly a central theatre of the Cold War since the Russian invasion. The US foreign policy establishment was shocked by its errors in failing to predict the long-term consequences of supporting islamist forces against communism, as well as at other times against various secular-left and republican forces in other parts of the Middle East. This was relevant to the US position not only in Afghanistan, but crucially with Saudi Arabia, both as a monarchy and a conduit to Islamist influence all over the Sunni world at least. In the period Huntington was finishing the book three years later, thousands of people had been killed in Bosnia and the Taliban were about to take Kabul.

Part of the point so far is that there's no reason his thesis should not be understood as much, if not more, as an urgent manual for how a disorientated superpower should think in the world, at a particular time and place, and by a particular foreign policy functionary of 30 years - than any disinterested external academic analysis.

The framework was widely challenged and even mocked outside state-sponsored academic circles in the US in the mid-1990s, until one event revived it - September 11. Afghanistan, and the general rise of Islamism, had been major US foreign policy worries in 1993 when Huntington wrote his first article, and suddenly a Saudi islamist had launched a catastrophically destructive attack on US soil, from Afghanistan. There were plenty of US officials and policymakers who believed that not only the central concept of Huntington's prediction of a civilisational clash, but also the delineations of it, had been proven right. This also went on to inform George Bush Jr's actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. A number of neoconservatives believed that they were first bowing to the inevitable in his clash of civilisations, but then could also overcome this process by re-imposing the unipolar liberal democratic order, which transcended cultural boundaries, as a result of the conflict. This might have been a type of Hegelian thinking you could expect from previously Marxist thinkers.

To move back to Huntington, what has happened since then is the story of the gradual unravelling of various parts of his thesis.

For instance and to begin with, in his hierarchy of existential conflict, Huntington said that Muslim-Christian conflict would be a dominant organising principle, not intra-religious conflict. Because of the US invading Iraq and deposing a Sunni dictator, by the 2010s Iran had developed a sphere of influence stretching from the border with Afghanistan to Irag and Syria, through to Lebanon on the Mediterranean coast. This bloc then formed one half of the supply network for the catastrophic conflict in Syria and Yemen against the Sunni Muslim world, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and also Turkey going on to champion the other side. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran in particular is genuinely perceived by both sides as an existential fight for civilisational survival, which explains the ferocity of the conflict still going on in Yemen. In this conflict, Saudi Arabia not only cleaves closer to the West, but even Israel, than fellow Muslims, and Iran not only cleaves closer, but actually depends for its survival on the supposedly civilisationally and axiomatically opposed, according to Huntington's thesis, powers of Orthodox Russia and "Sinic" China.

If you move over to Europe, you're immediately struck again at how much Huntington's thesis has gone wrong. Because he was writing at the peak of the Yugoslav war for instance, he clearly imagined that Russia was at the start of exerting an ever-greater pull-factor in South-Eastern Europe by virtue of religion. Instead, not only have Bulgaria and Romania joined Nato and the EU, but now North Macedonia, Albania and even Montenegro are NATO members, too. Looking further afield, instead of feeling the inexorable pull of Russia, as in Huntington's model, Greece, as the only non ex-communist country Huntington characterised as part of the Eastern-Orthodox bloc, has clearly opted to bind itself into the Eurozone and the core of the mediterranean and north-west european EU, actually at any cost. In the process, during the Eurozone crisis, it also became even more obvious that the political economy and political culture of Greece, as by way of example a country with a strong grassroots and anarchist left, high regulation and a large public sector, had more in common, in a number of key respects, with Spain and Portugal, than its immediate neighbours. Without this, the Left mediterranean ( or Euro-atlantic, in the case of Portugal) parties of those countries would not have made, or been able to make, common cause against the EU north-western centre during the height of the Eurozone crisis, in the way they did. Cultural patterns related to this were already so obvious before the crisis, that Nicolas Sarkozy, with France itself in the conflicted position at the EU north-western centre but also as a Mediterranean nation sharing some of the characteristics, had attempted to found a "Mediterranean Union" around 2007-8, running along Spain, France, Italy and Greece, with Turkey and countries in North Africa on the balance of probability to be made next-tier members, on the strength of differences in their political and institutional set-up. This was actually an embryonic EU on a different geo-cultural basis, to be helped into being by French administrators once again. Instead, the real EU paid the ultimate tribute to it, and to how threateningly plausible the cultural substance of it actually was, by being extremely careful to knock it entirely on the head, and carefully broadened it into the essentially meaningless advisory talking shop of the "Union for the Mediterranean" , which has ended up having little influence, by including all of the EU and large parts of North Africa and the middle east.

It's too exhaustive to outline every area, but now let's have a look at South-East Asia. There are again clearly either major methodological errors, outdated research on the ground, or more probably both. When Huntington began writing in 1993, China was still an emergent middle-ranking power, not a superpower, and India was only recently emerging from a politically non-aligned status with the West - as well as negligible spheres of economic and political influence. India has now entirely moved away from a non-aligned position, but is also in simultaneous increasing conflict with China. Looking further around again, the idea that Myanmar is not now more heavily in the 'Sinic' sphere of influence than the "Buddhist Bloc" Huntington instinctively puts it in would be considered odd by many analysts today. This is because China has outgrown the political, economic and cultural role Huntington put it in.

Finally, let's have a look at Latin America. Huntington's thesis, that the entirety of Latin America is non "Western", is strikingly less nuanced, more broadbrush, and immediately more odd than for any other continent. This is probably why it was one of the most immediately questioned, contested and even ridiculed when it first came out. Chomsky's thoughts on it are useful, because they relate to points made earlier. Taking into account Huntington's personal and historical background, his account could easily be described as reflecting the history and justifications of US foreign policy, and a mandate for more in the future ; or a mandate "for the US to interfere or invade as often, or over as large an area as possible", as I think Chomsky more straightforwardly put it.

It's mentioned above, but it bears repeating : Huntington was not some random disinterested academic observer. He was an absolute stalwart of US Cold War total-realpolitik, who had been so obsessive about winning against Vietnam in 1968 for geo-strategic reasons, for instance, that he suggested deporting the entire Vietnamese population to the countryside if it was necessary to win the conflict, but without any of the underlying moral or cultural anger of later conservative strategists. He influenced ultra-realpolitik in the region throughout the '70s, which by the turn of the 1980s had culminated in one of the most astonishing moves in the history of US foreign policy, with both Reagan ( and Thatcher) ending up covertly supporting the genocidal Marxist-Leninist party of Pol Pot in exile purely on the grounds of Vietnamese policy. The point here, is that Huntington was almost as pragmatically opportunistic, rather than culturally driven, a thinker as you could possibly imagine, but here was giving a cultural analysis simply because it seemed contingent at the particular time, and was also influenced by post-modern trends of that time .

If you work from this starting-point, it's quite hard to discount anyone saying that there are good personal, professional-historical or bureaucratic reasons to be most suspicious of all of Huntington's Latin American continental characterisation, which is also the most immediately unorthodox and blanket continental characterisation of all of them. Purely because of geographical proximity, the US intervened more directly, widely and almost uniformly, and over a longer period of time, across the whole of the Latin American continent than anywhere else in the world.

An objection to all this might run : "OK, there a few errors here and there, but aren't the rough contours of the characterisation "roughly about right" ? Doesn't someone in Scotland still have more in common with someone in Germany than in Saudi Arabia ? Haven't we seen Christian-Muslim conflict" ?

The problem is that Huntington's analysis is *not* a quantitative analysis of trends, charting the balance of historical and cultural push-and-pull factors in certain places, a spectrum of more-or-less : it's qualitative and deterministic. All countries are fundamentally bound by the same equivalent historical forces, to organise themselves into the same equivalent historical groups, to fight their most existential and defining conflicts. If some of this doesn't work, none of it works. Jeremiad469 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

"Latin civilisation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Latin civilisation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 10#Latin civilisation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Latin American inclusion

There are at least 4 references stating that Latin America, and Mexico as an extension (which is a NORTH AMERICAN country), are part of the West and Western culture. Why are they being deleted? This isn’t about what you like or dislike, this is about FACTS. The references build on each other these facts 1) Mexico is in North America, 2) North America is part of the Western world, and according to Webster’s dictionary, “Noun 1. Western civilization - the modern culture of western Europe and North America.” 3) Mexico is in Latin America 4) Latin America’s literature is stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica to be a Western Literature and listed as such along with others, including “European literature” and “Scandinavian literature”, etc. 4) Latin America is indeed part of the Western world: redirected from Western World is the definition for ‘Occident’, which means “The countries of Europe and the Western Hemisphere”. ll CMD007 (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought this debate had been settled a long time - just like it did on the Western world article. Latin America can be considered part of the Western world and culture, and it can also be considered closely related/intertwined yet distinct. Both views are valid. That's why the map in the Western world got so much support: because it translates this inclusivity and complexity well. Morgengave (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd also add the Philippines as another example of being in a "unique position" as well. If I'm not mistaken, the map, (I assume you're talking about Samuel Huntington's map) mostly labels the Philippines as being "Western", though I'm sure you can make a case for them being Western or not. In a stark contrast to the other neighbouring countries they're overwhelmingly Christian at about 92% and you can see the influence from European colonization and later American colonization/occupation throughout the country. Such as many Filipinos possessing European surnames and English being one of the official languages there. But as I mentioned, there are other reasons one can make for them not being "Western". As the above user said, the map shows the complexity behind the meaning of the "Western world". I think its fine the way it is. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Clear Looking Glass, The Philippines is not in the same position as Latin American countries, as most of its people are not racially/ethnically European-descended. It fits in more with places that have been European territories such as Equatorial Guinea. European names were given to Filipinos for tax reasons, while the overwhelming majority of Latin Americans bear surnames from their European ancestors. CMD007 (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Latin America is culturally more related to Europe than the US has ever been, so it is weird to see the creators of the article talking about Football, music, cuisine and Catholicism and, at the same time, considering the US being part of it instead of Latin America. --†_JuanPa_† (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Dubious

I have issue with the terminology section. Not only can it be written better but the statements are questionable. I removed one of the sources because when I read it it was to an entire chapter being referenced about the Corpus Juris Civilis and nothing to do with the Byzantine empire being considered "not west" due to Iran and Arab influences, so I tagged it as a dubious claim. I also added a citation needed tag for an earlier part of the sentence on the claim that most scholars consider the Byzantine Empire not western. Apologies if I should have discussed here first but it's just so badly written that I feel the entire section needs a review. Elias (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Terminology

This article does not have information concerning the use of the term 'western civilization'.

There needs to be information on the widespread usage of the term western civilization that is understood separately form the concept of western civilization. For example, the article on Christendom states in its Terminology section 'The Anglo-Saxon term crīstendōm appears to have been invented in the 9th century by a scribe somewhere in southern England'.

If information is available there should be text explaining whether the ancient Romans and Greeks commonly used the term 'western civilization' in ancient times.

Was there gradual or intermittent usage of the term 'western civilization' or was this term absent during dark ages, middle ages and medieval times?

Does the term western civilization only originate as a modern analytical term and then became a common term in modern times?

Information on all of these matters should be sought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.17.237 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Colin M (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Western culture → Western civilization – More WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Probably the same applies for Eastern Culture, but there is already an open move request and I can not open a second one while the first isn't closed. Schleiz (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. While often used interchangeably, the term "civilization" is not exactly value-free but has additional Non-neutral POV connotations (e.g. civilization vs. barbarism). Given that ambiguity, I'd opt to retain the article at the current title. Walrasiad (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose "Western civilization" evolved from Graeco-Roman roots, while "Western culture" evolved from Sumerian/Babylonian and Egyptian roots (see astrology, constellations, 360-degree circle, base-60 time, etc) This article covers in the lede, that base in Mesopotamia, the Mediterranean world. While "Western society" is what evolved in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, that gradually included the Christian Orthodox and Slavic world. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Walrasiad's comment. When I think of the word "civilisation", I think of people who mean to talk about "urbanised societies", albeit with additional connotations (think of urbanised "civilised" countries like the ones in Western Europe versus the supposedly "uncivilised" or non-urban societies present in most of the post-colonial world).

‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ ^{💬reach out to me}
_{📝see my work} 00:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia elevating Huntington's dated and lowly-regarded map

Why is Samuel Huntington's map being given such prominence by Wikipedia at the top of this page ? He's generally not well-regarded by international relations experts, either in his conclusions or in his methodology. Not only that, but his supposedly 'epochal' map is rooted in and dated by a very specific historical time and place. Writing almost thirty years ago, he saw the Yugoslavian war as being the barometer of allegiances in Europe, for instance. He probably expected that ex-communist South Eastern European countries would not join the EU, as they did. This is highly dated and very specifically of its time, and should not be at the top of the page.

Jeremiad469 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It also very clearly contradicts the first sentence of the section. I have removed it, just for the moment, pending any convincing refutation of these points, or particular reason to keep.

Jeremiad469 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The map of Huntington and his ideas on which it is based, although not politically correct from modern-day point of view, are not only one of the most cited political prognoses ever written by an international politics researcher, but also one of the most discussed. Jingiby (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind the map. As the user above said, it may not be "politically correct" from a modern point of view, but it is heavily discussed and cited. And it's not like the map has been free of criticism (this has been discussed in other talk pages). Plus, I think the map accurately depicts just how complex and arbitrary the definition of the "Western world" can be.

Look at the Philippines. The country sticks like out like a sore thumb in contrast to their neighbours, and Samuel Huntington's map labels much of the country as being "Western". They're about 92% Christian (sources vary, but I found one which claimed that about 86% was Catholic and the other 6% were other Christian followings),[1], and they have a lot of European and later American influence due to colonization/occupation. Such as many in the Philippines having European surnames, English is one of the official languages, and they're seemingly one of the few Asian countries who primarily use the Month-Day-Year format as opposed to mainly using the Day-Month-Year or Year-Month-Day format found in many neighbouring countries. Presumably because of the United States. They seem pretty "Western" to me. Though there are other people who would argue otherwise. Just like people who would argue that Latin America should be part of the "Western world" as well and others who feel differently. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Huntington's ideas are back in 2022, thanks to Putin and NATO. Professor Thomas Meaney of the Humboldt University in Berlin, argues in the New York Times of March 11, 2022, there has been a turn to Huntington's ideas in response to the mobilization of the West against Russia's aggression in Ukraine, and the ambivalent position of large non-western nations which have largely refused to support those sanctions. He states: "Now talk of ‘the West’ is back, and its accompanying terms the ‘free world’ and ‘Western Civilization’ have been called up for duty." Meaney emphasizes that NATO has adopted the theme, especially as expressed by Biden. Russia has developed under Putin an oppositional civilizational understanding of Russia's place in the world, as has Turkey under Erdogan with its neo-Ottoman sphere, and the neo-Hindu emphasis of Modi in India. He states: "In the late 2000s there was also a turn to a civilizational understanding in Beijing, where dutiful readers of Mr Huntington have spread notions of Chinese civilization." See Thomas Meaney, “The Return of ‘The West’” New York Times March 11, 2022. Rjensen (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Egypt?

No mention of Egypt’s contribution to Western civilization or Greece to begin with? What about Mesopotamia? India? Aztec? China? Christianity itself begun in Bronze Aged Palestine yet no mention of that? Nlivataye (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The first thing it says under History is "The earliest civilizations which influenced the development of Western culture were those of Mesopotamia; the area of the Tigris–Euphrates river system, largely corresponding to modern-day Iraq, northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey and southwestern Iran: the cradle of civilization. Ancient Egypt similarly had a strong influence on Western culture." So there you are. LastDodo (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Christianity itself begun in Bronze Aged Palestine" Where did you draw that conclusion? Per Time periods in the Palestine region, the Bronze Age in the region was over by 1000 BCE. Placing its end about 10 centuries before the birth of Paul the Apostle. Dimadick (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Illustrations of Western architecture

I am not sure that the current illustrations of Western architecture are optimal. First, I think such illustrations should show widespread styles in Western countries, i.e., styles found in the majority of countries typically considered part of the West. These would be Romanesque art, Gothic art, Renaissance architecture, Baroque architecture and Classicism. Both the St. Basil's Cathedral and the Borgund Stave Church are styles too typical of their respective countries. The article is intended to demonstrate the commonalities between Western countries, not to point out features which are unique to individual countries. Second, I am not sure if Russia can even be considered a Western country, which would make the inclusion of St. Basil's Cathedral even more inappropriate. While there is no universally accepted list of countries that should be included, Russia is definitely not one of the core countries. This is evidenced both by the fact that the only map included in the article excludes Russia, and by the fact that most Russians do not see their country as part of the West. Regardless, I would suggest deleting these two examples and replacing them with examples from the styles above. Fhesse (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)